however, sticking points, particularly religion. Bloom, like sonmany others of his philosophical sect — the unworthy disciplesnof the late Leo Strauss — are stuck in one of Condorcet’sneariier phases of progress, the stage at which philosophynreplaces religion. Religion, for Bloom, is irrational superstitionnmasquerading as truth, and it is the philosopher’s role toncombat error on this right flank while at the same timengiving battle to philosophy’s successor, science, on the left. Itnis all rather quaint and 18th-centuryish.nThe trouble with the defenders of the so-called “traditionalncurriculum” is that they are all reformers who refusento recognize that a revolution took place at the beginning ofnthis century, and any attempt to preserve or improve thenstatus quo is worse than futile. We do not need reform, wenneed a counterrevolution. Caution and moderation will onlynget in the way. It is better for the ship of higher education tonsink, with all its rats on board. Any effort to preserve ornimprove American universities will only confirm the government-backednmonopoly.nMost reformers labor under the delusion that the federalngovernment can be used to fix things up. Nothing could benfarther from the truth. Government may regulate, but itncannot create and it cannot innovate. Above all, governmentncan never undo its mistakes, except at the point of a gun ornat the bottom of an empty cash register. Government’s firstnmotto is “Never apologize, never explain.”nThe federal government’s efibrts at curriculum reformnare uttedy predictable. The U.S. Department of Educationnhas its own model curriculum for a James Madison HighnSchool, and back in October the admirable Mrs. Cheneynunveiled her own 50 Hours: A Core Curriculum for CollegenStudents. This model includes, in addition to two wholenyears of foreign languages, three semesters of Wodd Civ.nfrom Moses and Homer to Richard Wright but alsonincluding that Mayan masterpiece, Popol Vuh, and anone-year course on the glories of the social sciences. Therenis room for everything and everyone in the NEH’s curriculum;neverything, that is, but a serious grounding in our ownncivilization.nSuch a grounding is not something to be acquired fromnreading a handbook or parroting the platitudes of Westernnvalues. Conservatives are fond of quoting T.S. Eliot by waynof Russell Kirk on the importance of the permanent things.nWe complain, with considerable justification, about thendecline in all our cultural standards. The first step, then, is tonquit complaining and work hard at exemplifying the highestnstandards of our civilization. Civilization, like charity, beginsnat home, and the time has come for conservatives to cleanntheir own house.nWho has not heard story after story about conservativenleaders who bought or “arranged” their doctorates, whonwere found guilty of plagiarism, perjury, or fraud? Perhapsnthis explains the new popularity that Dr. Martin LuthernKing enjoys among Big Government conservatives. Then”Doctor” should now be understood as strictly a courtesyntitle, since King, it has been recently revealed, apparentlynplagiarized his Boston University doctoral dissertation.nKing’s phoney Ph.D. is enough to make him a hero to atnleast one self-described “progressive” conservative founda-nHon executive who bought his degree from a storefrontndiploma mill in Florida and now passes on academic grantsn16/CHRONICLESnnnthat add up to millions every year. It is people like this whontoday control the conservative movement. If conservativesnare serious about upholding the permanent things, then theynshould see to it that those who are holding this banner donnot, by their character, incompetence, and behavior, disgracenit.nNo sensible person should take sides in this battlenbetween radical progressives and progressive conservatives.nBut there are two goals — both of them probablynimpossible — toward which we could direct our efforts in thenconfidence that we would not be wasting our energies, twongoals that are so worthy in themselves that any regress — nonmatter how slight — in their direction would confer somenlasting benefit. The first goal is strictly reactionary: restorenthe classical curriculum of the 19th century and beef it upnwith a suitable amount of math and science courses. As anpractical measure, this would involve reinstituting an A.B.ndegree of the type I had to endure at Charleston College innthe 1960’s. In the current context, this would mean offeringna special degree certifying that each recipient had received ancertain amount of Greek and Latin, say 36 or 40 hours, asnwell as a roughly similar number of hours in his major.nThe advantages of a classical A.B. are too numerous andnobvious to mention. For one thing, it would mean annEnglish or history major could once again hold his own innthe company of chemistry and math students. Fashionablenlaw schools and top medical schools would begin givingnpreference to A.B.’s, because they had demonstrated ancapacity for hard work and an appreciation of the power ofnsnobbery in American professional life. The possibilities arenendless.nThe A.B. is impossible, some will say, and the classicsncannot be revived for political reasons. Surely there must benan alternative. There is: it is called deregulation, the secondngoal, which goes by the road of anarchism rather thannreaction. Since the days of President Eliot, educators havenbeen talking about the needs of the students. We are alwaysnbeing told, in the case of dress codes, co-ed dormitories, andncampus cultural events, that students are mature men andnwomen who know what they want. Fine, then, let themnhave it. Abolish all university-wide restrictions and do awaynwith tenure. Turn each faculty member into an independentncontractor, something like a paperboy, who is not paid anfixed salary but a commission for every paper he sells on hisnroute. Teachers who are popular for whatever reason — forntheir sex appeal, their low standards, or even for their meritsnas scholars and teachers — would be paid commensuratenwith the number of students they attracted. Others wouldnstarve.nThe students, of course, would have to learn to acceptnresponsibility for their own lives, that is, assuming theynwanted to go to a professional school. They would not, fornthe most part, sign up for many courses in Americannliterature or film appreciation, but then those “Lite College”ncourses (all the credit hours with only half the content)nare increasingly dominated by Marxists, feminists, and othernradicals. In a Free University, decent American kids wouldnno longer have to sit through boring rants on what it was likenin the 60’s. Even a classical A.B. might turn out to have anfighting chance in a free-market system. <^n